Joshua R. Stanford brought a case against Clay Taylor to the United States Supreme Court in 1855. The dispute arose from an agreement between the two men that involved Stanford selling goods on credit and Taylor agreeing to pay for them with cotton bales he owned. When Taylor failed to deliver enough of his cotton, Stanford sued him for breach of contract and sought damages in court. In its ruling, the Supreme Court held that although there was evidence of a contract between the parties, it could not be enforced due to lack of consideration or mutuality because one party had already received something while nothing had been given by the other party at time when they made their agreement. Therefore, no legal action could be taken against either party as neither was legally bound by any contractual obligations under this particular arrangement.

Justice McLean delivered the dissenting opinion in the case of Joshua R. Stanford v. Clay Taylor, arguing that a contract between two parties should be enforced according to its terms and conditions as agreed upon by both parties. He argued that if one party fails to fulfill their obligations under the agreement, then they are liable for damages caused by their breach of contract. In this particular case, Justice McLean believed that Stanford had fulfilled his obligations under the contract and was entitled to receive payment from Taylor for services rendered; however, he felt that it was not appropriate for him to be held liable for any additional costs incurred due to delays or other issues outside of his control. Furthermore, Justice McLean argued against allowing courts to modify contracts after they have been entered into because doing so would create uncertainty in contractual relationships and could lead people away from entering into agreements altogether out of fear of potential changes being made down the line without their consent or knowledge.